The closest threat detection system to present invention is the Rapiscan Systems Secure 1000 SP. The Secure 1000 SP uses backscatter technology as well as image processing software and an operator interface to screen passengers for a wide range of potential threats including liquids, contraband, ceramics, explosives, narcotics, concealed currency and weapons. The Secure 1000 SP generates a front and back scan simultaneously. The Secure 1000 SP can detect small objects and threats concealed on a passenger. It can detect organic and inorganic threats, metals and non-metallic objects and can detect concealed liquids, ceramics, weapons, plastic explosives, narcotics, metals, contraband, currency etc. The Secure 1000 SP requires one pose with no additional movement by the passenger, a full scan can be completed in seconds. The Secure 1000 bounces very low dose of x-rays off of a person to generate an image. This image is then analyzed by an operator to identify concealed potential threats.
The Rapiscan Systems Secure 1000 is limited in that it requires a person to be in a single pose for scanning, it requires an operator to determine what threats are present and to review the scanned images, it uses x-rays for scanning, it only performs backscatter and no pass through imaging, at it is designed to work at a security checkpoint as opposed to use in an array where it can scan multiple individuals and their luggage without causing a security bottleneck. The Rapiscan Systems Secure 1000 is incapable of detecting radiation/nuclear materials.
There is a need for multi-threat detection systems with very short processing time allowing detection of a variety of threats simultaneously.
Most of the threat detection technologies that have been used in the security field so far require some cooperation from the inspected people. The degree of expected cooperation varies from relatively mild requirement to stand in certain position for a certain time to the ultimate “take everything out of your pockets” request. Whatever the cooperation requirements are, somebody has to ensure that the inspected people cooperate properly. This means that even for fully automatic systems, such as metal detectors, the performance will depend on the skills and motivation of the security staff, and the need to have such staff near every inspection system makes operational costs very high.
A direct consequence of the standard cooperative inspection approach is prohibitive cost of using existing inspection systems in crowded places: even for automatic detection systems, too much personnel would be needed to ensure that everybody cooperates properly.
The only widely used non-cooperative security-related hardware are CCTV cameras, which often work without people even knowing that they are viewed. However, CCTV cameras typically require human operators to interpret video stream, and are thus only useful after the incident has already happened. One of the main problems currently facing the security community is the growing dissatisfaction of the public and businesses with the high operational costs and disruptions of normal functioning of the protected sites that are often associated with current security measures. This dissatisfaction, which is for the most part totally justified, not only threatens to undermine the current achievements in the traditional security areas, such as aviation security, but also prevents deployment of security solutions to other high-risk locations, such as urban transport infrastructure (metro, trains, buses), mass sports and political events, government buildings etc.
Dramatic reduction of the operational costs and the inconveniences caused by security measures to the protected sites would thus be the key to maintaining and increasing both the level and proliferation of security measures.